9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment and the authority has been directed that the refund amount was to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Bills of Entry were assessed with higher value and the higher quantum of duty was demanded. This became the subject matter to decide and the matter had reached before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by order No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the split up of the total quantum of duty of Rs. 54,90,728/- received by the appellants in the above stated heading. I have heard both the sides in the matter. 2. The learned Counsel relies on large number of judgments and submits that the issue is covered by the following judgments:- (i) Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd. v. CCE., Aurangabad [2005 (187) E.L.T. 499 (Tri.-Bang.)] (ii) CCE., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading and has shown split up in the Book of Accounts. This was not the question to be decided in the matter. The short question to be decided in the matter is as to whether the refund was due to them in terms of the Commissioner's (Appeals) order No. 165/2003, dated 22-2-2004. The excess loading of the amount in the Bills of Entry was paid under protest and the matter was taken up before the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discharged their burden of excess amount not passed on to the customers. In the cited judgments, the ratio is the same lines. This Bench in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd. (supra) while referring to other judgments has clearly held that when the excess duty paid was absorbed by the company then the duty burden has not been passed on to the customers. The Bombay High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
